@JoshXT you could end up back with BG or against BG when the re-link occurs. Still no “rules” on how often the re-link will occur, exactly how the re-link works, and if the cost will change to transfer again. Glad it worked for you and your group, but many won’t bother until these things are written in stone.
Now if some of the hosts were actually open, then I’d bet maybe more might do what your group did. Only time will tell of course.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Fairweathering is a problem in T1 N.A.
FTFY. People come out and “help the server win” when the server is already doing well. They disappear when the server isn’t doing so hot. Leads to some really awkward population issues.
That happens everywhere indeed. Being on YB, I personally look to dropping for a break from BG. I didn’t’ play much when we were doing the same to T2 – it just isn’t fun to be on either end of those matchups.
What makes it so bad now is even if a BG guild wanted to move, all the hosts are full. I wouldn’t leave BG for a nomad server. Heck I don’t think I’d leave any host….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Why not just transfer down to a less blobby tier?
Exactly why I have a second account on a less blobby tier.
Because you can’t transfer to ANY host. If you transfer to a guest you may end up back where you started when worlds are re-linked and it cost you gems to do it….. The suggestion might work if there was open host servers….
Alt accounts are great, until they end up in the same tier as mine are…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Oh yeh, you just reminded me. Some solo Ranger/Mes/Thief contesting a structure by hitting the door/NPCs a bit is also nonsense.
Why? I am pretty sure that guards will voice an alarm if an attacker attacks them, doors will be closed etc etc…
Regarding the walls, if I fire a heavy stone at the meetinmg line of two walls, would they not both be damaged?
Guards would not alert people from 1 ranger plinking arrows at a wall. That thief banging at the door is not a threat either. Now maybe if they built and manned siege…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Frequency of re-linking will be an upcoming poll based on Tyler’s other thread.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
The stackers on ET and DR will complain when they find out they are BG / Maguuma and must re-link possibly more frequently than they hoped and possibly for more gems…..
There was full disclosure by ANet that server links are not permanent. They moved knowing that.
The real problem is the chilling effect server links have on WvW guild recruitment. Players hesitant to join a guild on the linked server, etc.
I thought so too, but another thread made it sound like some people who moved to dr thought they were on mag until they decided to move…. The reason given is that not everyone reads the forums. Others probably think they were linked for 3 months minimum as well. I just see any poll on the frequency of linking being a big issue because some will want what is good for them and not the game…..
Recruitment is tough indeed. Either you are recruiting the linked world or people who have moved on from their previoUs guIld – their is no new pipeline on the host worlds….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@skyshroud – some form of what you say is indeed required for linking to ever work. It is just silly to have all perm/host servers full. Not only is the population way different, but how would someone or a guild ever move down to another host home? I’d cant see myself leaving a host for a guest….
For the person that prefers smaller scale, how do they move to a T4 host server? They can’t because the hosts are locked. Current guests that are empty (T4 linked) could be the next T1 link. The stackers on ET and DR will complain when they find out they are BG / Maguuma and must re-link possibly more frequently than they hoped and possibly for more gems…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
many thought a successful teq kill should award currency like dungeons that could be used to buy the weapons. RNG just plain stinks… I must have killed that thing 200+ times before the hoard dropped. not sure if this is a wvw track, but I guess dungeons are so why not….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@Foghlada – all the hosts are full. right now you can only move from 1 nomadic existence to another. people on hosts can only become nomads as well if they move. some have done that and will just pay to txfr each re-linking – others are just sort of stuck…. I have a feeling the frequency of linking discussion will be quite contentious with the player base. the people paying will want to do it infrequently on the cheap…….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
well no one is moving to hosts – they are all full. so must be referring to movement within guests ET-DR etc…
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
you might be able accomplish something similar by have another map with much lower map cap ( 30? ) in the existing matches. id think as a 4th bl or 2nd EBG (same physical map) not replacing the existing….
Not sure I would choose this “mode”, but it does seem a decent amount of peeps would.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
the part I don’t get is that even if a nomad got past losing their home and wanted to settle into a new home – they can’t as all hosts are full. like server 12 is anything close to bg, tc, yb, db etc ……
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Does anyone know if there Server linking is actually basing it’s stats of active average wvw population across the week. Or is it just overall server pops?
for na it was bare bones simple rank 1 + 24, rank 2 + 23, rank 3 + 22 etc. That in itself was far too simplistic. What made it worse was the links were made before the true effect of pop movement / returning pop right before and after patch drop had a few weeks to sort servers out… BG, DB, and maybe Tc gained peeps. Jq and Yb lost peeps.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Whatever dude – I was in the no vote last time so I clearly didn’t lemming with others…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
No one reads, everyone just blasts out responses to a
‘hey guys, how you doing, heads up on these upcoming things, just want to keep you in the loop’
The general populus responds with:
“ummm, umm a – no, b-no maybe, c I don’t care, d – hodor”
At this point, I would just give the populus a picture of a door and tell them to hold it up. See if that’s achievable.
or we respond and see others responses and reasonings which may sway our vote when the actual vote comes up…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
I don’t see the harm in more options. id never ever choose siege track myself, but if it makes someone else happy….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
having re-links all the time.. looks weird, and not logical for the people playing always with diferent players.
If the goal is to use server links as a poor-man’s population balancing mechanism, then it doesn’t look weird at all. And how is it different from people transferring around to play in different matches with different players anyway?
Not knowing how they will be re-linked and at what interval is part of the issue. Another issue is even if the people who were t8 and may enjoy t4 style of play instead of t1 style were willing to transfer, all hosts are full. Moving to a t4 guest may not be permanent. I would think there needs to be some mechanism to allow people to move to at least some of the hosts. maybe even 1 free transfer from any nomad server to T4.
Right now I am not sure how anyone can build/rebuild a server. A server is either locked or a nomadic existence. If this is the case, why have servers?
Hope I am a negative Nellie and all works out, just not seeing it right now….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
don’t know what to tell you. if the server linkings were meant to be permanent, they could have just merged them….. I expect there to be a lot of complaints on how often they re-link and how they are re-linked. I voted No to the linkings so don’t care anymore myself.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@Balth – As of now you are a nomad like it or not. You have no chance to transfer to any host as they are all set to full. (Like DH has anything close to the pop of BG……..) If you like the T4 style of play, guess what your linked world might be T1 next go around. And the peeps who went ET, you might be T4 next go around……
Linking may have had a chance if hosts were open for the guests to choose a more permanent style of play they wanted …..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
To the “why didn’t you simply transfer?” crowd:
You should never; NEVER have to pay extra for something that:
1/ you already paid for.
2/ others are enjoying just as intended
3/ compensate for poor foresight or developpement (whatever your opinion is on how Anet handled WvW so far).
It is my money that I earned, I have no one pumping cash into my wallet to pay for a trasnfer that I (and the rest of my guild) would not have to make if the gamemode was working as inteneded.
Therefore I will never take seriously someone using the “lol why’d u not transfer silly?” excuse to justify the injustice that wvw so far.
You don’t see me shouting “lol if u w8 too long in T1 just tranfer to T4/5/6 for shorter queue!”.
In the end the poll results should give u an idea also of where the crowd stands (for once that I’m on that side I plan on enjoying it)
in game currency can be converted to gems – no dollars or euros involved so no cost…..
BTW – one huge flaw is that you can’t transfer to any host (NA anyway). If you WANT the lowest tier, you must go to the guest which may end up linking with T1 next time repeating the cycle…
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
make them private not public use. the guild can switch to public from afar when they are needed.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
where did the thread go forum bug….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Mixed Borderlands – Do you want a mix of Alpine/Desert Borderlands maps? Yes. 1 desert and 2 alpine makes sense (and I prefer desert)
•World Linking Schedule – How often should we relink worlds? every 2-4 weeks to prevent stacking on the host server.
•Deployable Mortars – Do you want to be able to buy and deploy Mortars? No
•Deployable Cannons – Do you want to be able to buy and deploy Cannons? No
•Repair Hammer – Do you want to be able to spend supply to repair siege? Yes
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Pairing servers doesn’t mean destroying your server ID. It just means you have to work harder with your guild(s) to show your colors. Even if I could see your point I have to put you in the FirstWorldProblems category.
I’d rather play a much crowded/“bland” gamemode than the empty nightmare WvW has been for us in low tiers for the past 2.5 years.
What kept you from Transferring to a Higher Tier World if it was so bad where you were?
exactly – nothing. meanwhile others were forced into a marriage they didn’t want.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Vote no because now you have to wait 5 more minutes to get into the gamemode?
yeah no ty.
#FirstTierProblems
WvW was dead for us (EU T9) and I’d rather cut myself than return to the state we’ve been suffering for 2.5 years while smart T1/2 kitten would insult us on forums just for mentionning it.
you always had the choice to transfer. maybe a simple merge dissolving the guests and giving the displaced 1 free transfer works for everyone currently on a guest server……
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
What’s the point of keeping underpopulated worlds open and then developing ways to link them together?
Why not just close low pop worlds and offer free transfers from the closing servers to
targeted higher pop worlds?
The last thing WvW needs is even less world/server engagement.
WvW in GW2 is too much of a RvR lite mode as it is.
You already have EotM for the players that don’t really care about open world RvR or their server and simply want to join a random open map and fight.
Which brings me to the elaborate solution and how terrible I believe it will be.
You can’t destroy servers and their communities every few months.
cuz if everyone is on a bunch of low population servers, its easy for anet to break up overstacking when it occurs by relinking and distributing servers more evenly.
the cost to transfer is too cheap and length of linking far too long to not expect the stackers to restack every time links change. You only get around that by increasing the cost to transfer dramatically, limit the times one can transfer, or reduce the time between re-linking occurs. All those options have their own set of issues. this is why linking will never work…
good thing theyre already considering 2 of your 3 ideas.
and will they require a 75% vote as well? too many stackers will vote no on all 3….
good thing theyre taking feedback about the matter. i doubt you will see a poll for server transfer price increases. obviously people would vote no. i doubt a poll on reducing server link time would have trouble meeting a 75% threshold, in fact it may not have trouble reaching a 90% threshold. 3 months is too long.
all the people who paid to stack or join friends on the host will vote No to more frequent swapping and limited # of transfers over x time….
I guess what bothers me most is Tyler admitted the first link was bad, but here we are with no change allowing bad turn to worse…..
I just don’t see how linking will ever work in the long term, but I am a ‘get off my lawn’ kind of guy so I could be wrong.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Proper matches is subjective, but as for the relinking schedule we plan to hold a poll to determine how often it should happen (this is assuming World Linking wins the current poll).
It is also important to clarify that even though we might be able to hold relinking more regularly than quarterly there will still need to be some amount of weeks, we are still determining how many, before we can hold another relink because of glicko and time spent to make the match ups.
glicko shouldn’t come into the equation. the first links were admitted ‘bad’ links. no need to keep them any longer……
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
Proper matches is subjective, but as for the relinking schedule we plan to hold a poll to determine how often it should happen (this is assuming World Linking wins the current poll).
It is also important to clarify that even though we might be able to hold relinking more regularly than quarterly there will still need to be some amount of weeks, we are still determining how many, before we can hold another relink because of glicko and time spent to make the match ups.
Will you fix population for world transfers for linked servers? Or give options to those that transferred in this time a choice to be on the linked server?
My guild just started playing WvW together again but they had paid to go through DR to be on Mag.
they aren’t on mag. if the goal was to ensure friends playing together, you all needed to go to a guest. imagine all of et incorporated into bg – can you say super stacked?
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
What’s the point of keeping underpopulated worlds open and then developing ways to link them together?
Why not just close low pop worlds and offer free transfers from the closing servers to
targeted higher pop worlds?
The last thing WvW needs is even less world/server engagement.
WvW in GW2 is too much of a RvR lite mode as it is.
You already have EotM for the players that don’t really care about open world RvR or their server and simply want to join a random open map and fight.
Which brings me to the elaborate solution and how terrible I believe it will be.
You can’t destroy servers and their communities every few months.
cuz if everyone is on a bunch of low population servers, its easy for anet to break up overstacking when it occurs by relinking and distributing servers more evenly.
the cost to transfer is too cheap and length of linking far too long to not expect the stackers to restack every time links change. You only get around that by increasing the cost to transfer dramatically, limit the times one can transfer, or reduce the time between re-linking occurs. All those options have their own set of issues. this is why linking will never work…
good thing theyre already considering 2 of your 3 ideas.
and will they require a 75% vote as well? too many stackers will vote no on all 3….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
they almost need to be personal reward tracks or just another reason to stack…… not everyone will stack of course, but another reason to stack is not needed…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
What’s the point of keeping underpopulated worlds open and then developing ways to link them together?
Why not just close low pop worlds and offer free transfers from the closing servers to
targeted higher pop worlds?
The last thing WvW needs is even less world/server engagement.
WvW in GW2 is too much of a RvR lite mode as it is.
You already have EotM for the players that don’t really care about open world RvR or their server and simply want to join a random open map and fight.
Which brings me to the elaborate solution and how terrible I believe it will be.
You can’t destroy servers and their communities every few months.
cuz if everyone is on a bunch of low population servers, its easy for anet to break up overstacking when it occurs by relinking and distributing servers more evenly.
the cost to transfer is too cheap and length of linking far too long to not expect the stackers to restack every time links change. You only get around that by increasing the cost to transfer dramatically, limit the times one can transfer, or reduce the time between re-linking occurs. All those options have their own set of issues. this is why linking will never work…
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
there are plans to make the tickets available by some other means. don’t know the priority however….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
this has been a problem since the 9.99 accounts. one fix to limit this is no wvw for free accounts (or very limited – x hours to try it). there will still be spies and trolls, but not nearly as many.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@OP – if your friend isn’t on one of the guest servers, all 12 host servers are full so you can’t transfer there. You can transfer to the guest of the host he/she is on, but your link will change putting you back to square 1… if your friend is on a guest server (or you both go to a guest server) you are golden…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
The only way this would work is if you
1. De-link all worlds from accounts once, and have all players on all accounts have to pick a “new” server (for free) when they first log in post-patch, as if they’re a new acct.
2. RESET all server rankings completely.
3. Lower population caps for all worlds thus forcing players to spread out.
4. Forget and ignore all the “lul my guild on this server and I can’t transfer them to zerg harder”. Its a temporary pain to solve a major issue, and the game will be far healthier overall for it.
Hmm a jubilee huh. This would work very well.
I also like this…. Maybe have a que for transferring worlds just in case all your friends don’t make it, so they will in time.
This sounds so wrong on the surface, but I am not so sure the nuclear option isn’t the right way to go…… I had never thought about a waiting to list for transfer either. not sure that is so wrong….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
I’ll be willing to move to new servers. Can we name these new servers Kurzicks, Luxons and Canthas?
you mean Kurzick, Suxon, and Canthan right?
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
this is why I voted no on my 2 accounts – I don’t think there is a good way to link worlds no matter how much effort is put into it…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
considering the first linking was
so rudimentary 1/24 2/23 etc..
didn’t allow the pop to settle after the movement just prior to / after the patch
clear stacking of full worlds by transferring on the cheap to guest
why leave the link as is? doesn’t take 3 months to know it is crap right now. Not saying linking couldn’t be decent, it just isn’t right now.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
and they are betas not “live” betas…..
I have a feeling that DeWolfe has never been involved in open beta testing for any game, before. If he/she had, they would know what a ridiculous statement ‘should just be for a day, or a weekend’ actually is.
except the changes aren’t introduced to a live game.. most used public test servers and leave the game alone. 1 day is silly, but so is 3 months when flaws were found on day 2…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
and they are betas not “live” betas…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
try being in t1 where BG has the week wrapped up Saturday…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
That server merges are a great idea. But in EU ppl (ab)use it to create a new Power House. Sadly to see how many dedicated WvW Guild transfered to Vabbi bc desolation went full just for easy bags and making WvW broken again.
And yes server merges are one of that problems atm, bc the game mechanics don’t reflect it. So unlink server and improve mechanics first.
same has occurred in NA – peeps moved to BGs guest ET for the same exact reason you stated. the cost is so cheap for such an extended time. the same thing will happen again when/if re-linking occurs….
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@swagger – who are you to tell others their vote is wrong? some like 10 man blob versus 10 man blob instead of 30 v 30. The old way (non-linked) offered both options…..
And who are the players voting no because they don’t like to see mass pvp happen in a zone primarily designed for mass pvp?
So the future of mass pvp is going to be decided by players who don’t like mass pvp, but want to run in mass pvp zones without mass pvp?
That is YOUR idea what wvw is. Others may think it is something else. Difference is, I am not telling you that you are wrong. People can vote based on their own vision of what it should be and let the chips fall where they fall.
I will just leave you this – pretty rude telling others they are wrong though because their opinion is different than yours.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@swagger – who are you to tell others their vote is wrong? some like 10 man blob versus 10 man blob instead of 30 v 30. The old way (non-linked) offered both options…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
What happens if World Linking is voted out?
- We’d unlink worlds at the next reset, and we’d either do another partial Glicko reset, or restore pre-link values. Consider this an immediate return to the old system, with similiar to original populations on each world, excepting of course the players/guilds who have transfered to new worlds while World Linking was active.
- The next time we poll players asking which feature we should prioritize, we’d include population balance improvements as an option. This prioritization poll likely wouldn’t happen until we complete at least a significant part of the Scoring changes that have already been voted on. (Time-slice scoring/Skirmishes)
- If population improvements won that poll, then we’d poll again to ask what type of population balance feature you want to see worked on, including the amount of time each of those features would take. World Merging might be pretty quick to implement (though less reversible if the community later decided they didn’t want it), but most other solutions are likely to take a very long time, and it may be that when completed, the new population still won’t be able to get 75% of the community to approve it.
75% seems like a very high requirement. I’d bet you’d have a hard time getting 75% of the community to agree on anything. Especially with a third choice of “I don’t care”.
now that you mention it – ‘I don’t care’ is essentially a No since it counts against the Yes percent…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
nah can’t be anet employees that actually play the game and have fun while representing anet…. It is clearly a conspiracy.
but OP had a smiley so was probably sarcasm anyway…
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
that is what the poll is for. look for the anet posts in this or the other thread that explains what happens if vote goes yes or no.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
@Skyshroud: It’s completely logical: Anet can unlink the pairings once the other lower servers are more populated.
And yes, I think it’s an intentional fix to a long term issue where players refused to fix it themselves.
You really believe the servers are going to be unlinked, again? I really doubt if that will happen. Sure, the pairings might change, but I doubt if we’ll ever see servers unlinked, again.
depends on the poll. right now it doesn’t meet the 75% threshold (but close) to retain linking.
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
I mean…I don’t mean to harp here, but OF COURSE the majority of people are in favor of the linking. The majority of players are on the host servers who are NOT going to experience the pain I mentioned. The people stuck on the guest servers are eternally doomed to be switched and swapped at ANet’s whim with zero right or influence over when or how this happens even if they had chosen as a player to relocate at a COST prior.
Does NOBODY see a problem with this? Because I’m on ET I get to be a second class citizen who has no say in where I go and who I am paired with simply because I am on ET? NO…that is WRONG.
The obvious answer would be to transfer to a HOST server, but guess what…they are all full because that is where all the people already are, and thus they are oblivious to the problem. I am actually 100% UNABLE to correct this issue myself because it has been made literally impossible. No wait…I take that back. I can fix it as long as I’m willing to pay my transfer TAX every few months….
How would YOU feel if you spent 200 gold or $20 or more on a server transfer and then suddenly the next week your were linked with the server you just left? You would be LIVID. That is exactly what can and WILL happen to you if you vote yes to linking. It’s only a matter of time and I am pretty sure when it DOES happen ANet won’t be offering you any compensation in return.
There is such a thing as “the tyranny of the majority,” and this is one time where it is 100% appropriate.
you make a great point. the majority are on host servers. they may not care whether linking continues or not as their experience may not have changed much. Yet the people that have faced the real culture shock on a guest server are already a minority…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB
What fun was it to fiGht groups that didn’t want or were incapable of fighting? It goes both ways….
Sure if you are a small 5 man roaming group trying to capture a tower on your own, but when an entire server zerg refuses to fight, what’s the point of them being on the map?!
This is WvW, not EOTM!
Again this is a flaw in WvW and the ranking system, servers who like fights who end up being matched with servers who PvD, log off early cos it’s boring.
The PVd servers however prefer this, as they can then cap the maps and gain PPT, and give the illusion that they are the better server.
The old WvW devs have all left, the ones assigned to WvW now have no idea what to do.
don’t know the exact circumstance, but if people are outnumbered or have already wiped to a group multiple times – they will run/avoid. would they have before ppk? who knows…. you can always reduce your zerg size in hopes they will turn and fight…..
YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→YB→most likely YB